ISLAMABAD The atmosphere of the Supreme Court (SC) was charged, Thursday, as Justice Ch Ijaz Ahmad was visibly annoyed at Advocate Ibrahim Satti who repeatedly accused the court of hearing one-sided arguments against National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), which is being heard by a 17-member full bench of the apex court. Satti who supported the NRO appeared as counsel for a convicted former official of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) praying for benefit under the Ordinance. Times and again he said that the court was proceeding in single-sided manner and that he was not given proper time to plead his case. At time, when Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad repeatedly asked him to provide basis as to how and why he supported the NRO, Satti said that judges had made up mind and he was there to shatter that mind. To this, Justice Ijaz remarked that he would quit if he took direction from any side while deciding the fate of NRO. He further said that when he was sacked on November 3, 2007, he had firm belief in God that He would protect his chair. I am a Faqir (sanguine) person and never loved the chair, Justice Ijaz said. Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday said the court had not chosen to hear one-sided arguments in the case but no one was coming forward to defend the NRO. The Federation and the four provinces too had announced not to defend it, he said. There is nothing one-sided and we are providing the chance to every one from all sides, Justice Ramday maintained. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry while pointing to Advocate Satti said that he should come to court and have respect for the judges. However, after arguing for a while, Ibrahim Satti apologised to Justice Ijaz Ahmad and continued his arguments in support of the NRO. In his arguments, he said that NRO introduced by then President of Pakistan met all the requirements needed to promulgate an ordinance by the President and there were enough circumstances to introduce such legislation at that time. He further said that NRO was not declared invalid from the very first day of its promulgation by the quarters concerned including Supreme Court. Even when the petitions were filed before the SC challenging the legality of NRO on October 12, 2007, the apex court did not suspend the operations of NRO , he said. In addition to that, no one from the Parliament opposed the ordinance during four months after its promulgation which is the required time period for an ordinance to become a law, he said.